remedy trial courts could order to alleviate racial segregation upon their finding of its existence in a school system regardless of cause. Enstrom was struck by the legislative nature of this decision, which approved judicial affirmative action directed toward innocent objecting persons who were not parties. This led to his September, 1977, article in The San Diego Union, entitled "Busing, Not Integration, Opposed". Appendix I, infra.

In support of his questioning the exercise of such judicial power, he recalled the warning of a judicial giant:

Judge Learned Hand warned in his lectures on the Bill of Rights at Harvard in 1958 that the Supreme Court by its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in the school segregation cases appeared to be assuming the role of a third legislative chamber...

Judge Hand later in that lecture expressed a concern that busing dissenters can identify with:

For myself it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not. If they were in charge, I should miss the stimulus of living in a society where I have, at least theoretically, some part in the direction of public affairs.

Following publication of his article, Enstrom was asked to, and did, undertake at age 64 in 1979, to represent in pro bono publico the San Diego busing dissenters. This representation has included trying complex issues, filing an appellate brief, and filing, in 1990 and 1991, amici briefs in Supreme Court desegregation cases involving Oklahoma City and DeKalb County, Georgia.

This book re-presents novel arguments those San Diego busing dissenters have made in court proceedings which could only have been made by reason of pro bono representation. The thread running through their arguments reiterates the dissent of the esteemed Justice John Marshall Harlan I, that the Constitution is color-blind.